New Theory of Gravity | Dynamic Gravity

[Mordred]

I have to agree with Ajb, your understanding of physics is extremely poor.

 

Your statement your model is based on the electromagnetic force but not the electromagnetic field is 100% meaningless. They are two aspects of the same thing.

They are both comprised of the same virtual gauge boson the photon.

 

Photons can generate gravity.

 

Neutrinos do have mass but are not influenced by the electromagnetic force or field.

 

Dark matter and dark energy does have a mathematical prediction under SO(10) MSSM. We're still testing those mathematics with CERN.

 

Your refusal to provide the math will probably result in this thread being closed. The forum does have rules.

Gravity must work at all temperature scales even before protons and neutrons. So your statement about protons and neutrons is meaningless

DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

 

Higg's inflation possible dark energy

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

[Mordred]

 

in GR energy density corresponds to pressure via the stress energy tensor. Which also corresponds to the energy density via the equations of state

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

[latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p \eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

 

http://www.th.physik.uni-bonn.de/nilles/exercises/ss04/gr05.pdf

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

 

for the metric tensor portion above.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor_(general_relativity

This article covers GUT including SO(10)

 

Part of Gut is running of the coupling constants. Coupling constant relates a forces strength interactions to its kinetic energy

 

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES

 

we can do this for the other 3 forces, but not gravity as of yet.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

 

Here is how thermodynamics works with GR.

 

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General relativity

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205: "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields

The last article is extremely advanced but handy.

[Bignose]

I prefer to deal in predictions of observable events. And from where I am sitting your paraded GR has failed, it must be modified if it even can be, or erased all together.

Apart from the criticisms above, I also wanted to add this. http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377You need to familiarize yourself with just how accurate GR's predictions are. The paper in the link has 100+ pages detailing them. SPOILER ALERT: GR does pretty darn well.

 

As per the commentary above, if you want to replace GR, conceptually this is easy. Demonstrate that your idea makes even more accurate predictions than GR does. Please prepare a plot with the current measurements, the predictions made by GR, and the predictions made by your idea. The link above has many examples of this. If you really want us to accept what you say, and if you truly 'prefer to deal in predictions', then this is exactly what needs to be shown to us.

 

Otherwise, it is all story telling and can't actually be used. Scientists are very practical people, all in all. Give us something usable, and it will be used. You need to provide us with something that makes predictions so we can compare them to measurements.

[Boohda]

Then show the math. Or admit you have nothing.

 

 

 

 

Based on the above, you have nothing, you are just another sad sack relativity denier.

Oh I have something, just sad you deny anything unless it takes the form you prefer. I have encountered your kind before, never contributing anything positive, or even logical. Just simply rejecting anything that does not take the shape of your skull. As I have said, if you know and love math so much then bring the equations to this post to explain Dark Energy or Dark Matter. Otherwise stop trying to force other people to standards you yourself do not and can not uphold.

[xyzt]

Oh I have something, just sad you deny anything unless it takes the form you prefer. I have encountered your kind before, never contributing anything positive, or even logical. Just simply rejecting anything that does not take the shape of your skull. As I have said, if you know and love math so much then bring the equations to this post to explain Dark Energy or Dark Matter. Otherwise stop trying to force other people to standards you yourself do not and can not uphold.

You realize that everybody else, not just me, has figured out that you have no clue and that your "theory" is just hot air. I asked you a few predictions , you couldn't do even one. How about the calculation of the advancement of the perihelion of Mercury? If you cannot do it, just admit it.

[Mordred]

What makes you believe gravity is needed to explain dark matter and dark energy?

 

We can model both in terms of their gravitational influence without a problem. We can also model their thermodynamic influences. Gravity isn't the cause and source of everything. It is an influence in the presence of mass.

 

Has nothing to do with how or why particles form. This includes protons neutrons etc. Gravity isn't the cause of how they form.

 

Your basing your knowledge on numerous errors to the point where you refuse to learn basic physics.

 

Mass is simply resistance to inertia. Plain and simple. Gravity is an influence in the presence of mass.

 

It doesn't create particles nor supply the energy for particle production except possibly the graviton.

 

Space time curvature is simply the influence of gravity on mass, momentum and energy. NOT the Cause.

As far as the mathematics of what we do understand of both DE and DM. I already supplied those in the links on my previous post.

 

Try reading them

I also included a 986 page book on GR.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Mordred

[Bignose]

Oh I have something, just sad you deny anything unless it takes the form you prefer. I have encountered your kind before, never contributing anything positive, or even logical. Just simply rejecting anything that does not take the shape of your skull. As I have said, if you know and love math so much then bring the equations to this post to explain Dark Energy or Dark Matter. Otherwise stop trying to force other people to standards you yourself do not and can not uphold.

lol. Boohda, you came to this forum willingly. No one is forcing you to. If people really didn't care, they wouldn't have even bothered to ask you any questions. Do you understand that ALL science is questioned? ALL science requires supporting evidence? No one is just going to take your word that your idea is better. In answering questions, you make your idea stronger. By going out of your way to not answer questions, you just confirm that you don't have a very strong scientific idea.

 

Basically, if you aren't going to answer questions, then this thread will be closed by the mods because it is against the rules of this forum, in no small way because you aren't participating in a scientific discussion. And if that's so, I wonder why you even bothered to come to a science forum. But we're trying to give you a chance here, man. We're reading what you're writing. We're hoping there will be some scientific discourse here. But, so far, there isn't much. To be scientific, we need predictions. That's the absolute foundation of modern science. If you can't provide that, then sorry, but this isn't science.

[ajb]

Oh I have something, just sad you deny anything unless it takes the form you prefer. I have encountered your kind before, never contributing anything positive, or even logical. Just simply rejecting anything that does not take the shape of your skull. As I have said, if you know and love math so much then bring the equations to this post to explain Dark Energy or Dark Matter. Otherwise stop trying to force other people to standards you yourself do not and can not uphold.

Please read again what I, as well as Bignose and Mordred, have posted earlier.

 

So far you have not shown us anything like a 'theory'.

[Strange]

Oh I have something, just sad you deny anything unless it takes the form you prefer. I have encountered your kind before, never contributing anything positive, or even logical. Just simply rejecting anything that does not take the shape of your skull. As I have said, if you know and love math so much then bring the equations to this post to explain Dark Energy or Dark Matter. Otherwise stop trying to force other people to standards you yourself do not and can not uphold.

 

Sadly, we have encountered your kind before. Full of assertions but lacking any sort of model, evidence, predictions or even the veneer of science. You have been unable to provide meaningful or quantitative answers to any of the challenges put to you. As such, you provide no reason for anyone to consider these ideas.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

To make it official, you really do need to provide some supportive evidence for your ideas. Otherwise, it's just guessing, and anybody can do that anywhere (or rather, anywhere else).

 

We've chosen to require more from our members, and the vast majority appreciate it. It's not a format everyone is comfortable with, but it does let us set a rather robust standard for discussing science, while being far less rigorous than professional peer review. We want to be productive in our discussions, and that means we follow a methodology that gives us the best shot. Certainly better than wild guesses and hand-wavy assertions with nothing to compare to reality.

 

We ask that, if you have a problem with this modnote, you Report This Post rather than discuss it offtopic here in the thread.

[Boohda]

Too many replies to reply properly to them all, or even half. I will say this though since it appears the most everyone is just echoing one similar concepts all based around two root ideas. The first being that I don't understand GR and other basic principles of physics, if you believe I don't understand what I am talking about regarding anything related to Gravity then so be it. But I am no fool, and I assure you, I have spent more of my time wrestling with all concepts regarding Gravity over the last 18 years then anyone here will during their entire life. I guess your just gonna have to take my word of that, or don't. Just know there are many truths in this world, many of which are backed by quite seemingly sound math, but there is only one absolute truth.

 

The second echo I hear ringing over and over is one simple request, "Do the Math, or it doesn't count". I have written volumes on this thus far in the post, and no one seems to be listening. Its an unrealistic request, and it is anything but simple. If Dynamic Gravity is true, then the math would involve a lot more parameters then GR does, and require numbers that we don't have even estimates for, and won't for generations. Numbers such as exact densities layer by layer of all near by celestial bodies, how the internal structure of atoms is setup between protons and neutrons, how far the Electromagnetic force projects of each atom as a whole, and how two projecting electromagnetic fields interact, which depends on other factors aswell such as temperature. Plus spinning fields interactions, the list goes on and on. I am not dodging the question of math, I have already answered it, its well beyond the abilities of any team of mathmaticians ludricrous salaries could possibly assemble, much less one person such as myself who has never made it past differential equaitons. Are you begining to see the scope involved here?

 

So why did I post my theory here? And I do declare to call it a theory of 18 years in the making just doesn't seem justified by being called a simple idea. I posted here for the reason I said I did in the first post. To see if anyone here might have experimental evidience that could either prove or disprove my theory. I don't know if its right. All I know is that my theory makes a lot of predictions about how the universe would be, and they are almost exactly what we observe, GR can not make that claim, no matter how much math you drag out of it. And as I have said when substituting Einsteins median of space/time with DG's median of a displaced electromagnetic field, you will find the two concepts are so similar that Einstein has inadvertinly figured out a good chunk of the math. Concepts such as frame dragging in GR, translate over to DG by simply having the Eelectromagnetic Force field spinning as compared to GR's space/time. And the concept of time dilation transfers aswell if it is true that a stronger electromagnetic force field slows down the electrons ability to release photons. But as I have said, the math in DG is much, much more then GR, there is a lot going on in DG that is simply non existant in GR.

 

And as for Predictions of how the universe would be in DG, I have already gone into that, these are testable observations that if anyone of them failed to exist then I would abandon it, but they do exist. Predictions such as an expanding universe, galaxies that have other rims spinning nearly as fast as inner rims, black holes not producing any light, normal celestial objects never colliding, small objects never having orbiting debris trapped in orbit around it, planets being cospaciously sorted from smallest to largest from their parent star, stars of the similar size being similar distances apart, and larger stars being further away from neighbors, galaxies having interactions that form a structure to the universe, a proton not falling in a gravitational field, the speed of light as the speed limit for mass, and I am sure somethings I have forgotten about to mention.

 

If you think DG is a waste of time, then show a reason why. Attack DG! Show why it can't be correct! Don't attack me, and my inability to provide the most complitaced math the world has ever seen all based on measurements we don't even have availible yet. And don't give credence to GR when it doesn't deserve it, you say GR predicts an expanding universe, then show me one quote from Einstein saying so, because he would disagree with you on that, and its his theory. You say GR explains Dark Matter, then why do we spend billions operating underground labs built for one sole purpose to find just one particle of dark matter, yet years and years pass by and nothing has ever been seen, billions and billions spend on infermeters to find just one gravitational wave predicted by GR, and nothing has ever been seen, And they haven't even come up with anything that can make GR be compatible with Dark Energy, so far all theories to even attempt to explain it have filed, because they can't explain why the universe is expanding but our solar system is not, how can space itself be expanding when our universe which is in space and we can measure quite accurately has never expanded not one inch since we have had laser measurments. And for all its flaws don't get me started on the fact that GR never even comes close to explaining why mass curves space/time at all. I understand GR, and I will never agree with you no matter who much evidence you throw in defense of GR until it can explain what we observe and know to be true. Give me an explanation for why the universe is as it is, not mathmatical formulas that can calculate the precession of perihelion of mercury to 574.64 when observed is 574.10. Yes its close, I get it, but its not perfect, and it doesn't explain whats going on, or any of the other observations we have that I just mentioned.

 

Anyways, I have said what I came to say. If the only thing everyone hears in all my walls of text is "no math", then so be it. But at least my theory explains everything a theory should. I challenge you to do better, if you have drive to spend years of your life obsessing over one singular idea until it drives you crazy.

What is Gravity

And FYI, the calculations I did and posted up previously was designed to determined variation between the largest celestial objects and their parent body they orbited in our solar system. The numbers have no units because the units cancel out. Its not a measurement of force, but rather a measurement of how far away from the average celestial objects in our solar system are. If you believe in DG then this number is useful because it directly translates into the how much stress the two celestial bodies are putting on each other in ratio form compared to other pairs of celestial bodies. Its a very crude formula and i don't pretend its anything other then a measurement that you would expect to be similar between pairs of celestial bodies in orbit. Now whether you believe these numbers are similar or not is up to you. I personally think when comparing the scope of the numbers they are similar to a degree.

 

Formula= (Radius of Celestial A x Radius of Celestial B)/Distance | All in kilometers

 

I post the results up yet again for the second time:

Sun | Mercury = 29.79
Sun | Venus = 39.00
Sun | Earth = 29.56
Sun | Mars = 10
Sun | Jupiter = 62.46
Sun | Saturn = 28.34
Sun | Uranus = 6.13
Sun | Neptune = 3.81
Jupiter | Io = 301.48
Jupiter | Europa = 162.61
Jupiter | Ganymede = 171.85
Jupiter | Callisto = 89.50
Saturn | Mimas = 62.32
Saturn | Enceladus = 61.66
Saturn | Tethys = 104.82
Saturn | Dione = 86.73
Saturn | Rhea = 84.36
Saturn | Titan = 122.71
Saturn | Lapetus = 12.02
Sun | Alpha Centari = .013
Ida - .488.4

[Mordred]

I've already explained why you can't explain gravity by displaced electromagnetic force. In very simple non mathematical terms.

 

Not every particle is influenced by the electromagnetic force. PERIOD.

 

Photons are the force carrier of the electromagnetic force.

 

Yet photons are influenced by space time curvature.

 

I've studied the math of relativity, QFT,QED,quantum geometrodynamics, quantum flavor dynamics, particle physics, quantum chromodynamics etc.

 

I've provided the papers showing how each relate to each other. Far too lengthy to post. So I gave you guidance into looking at the differences in the stress energy tensor and the electromagnetic tensor.

 

I also informed you that protons and neutrons did not always exist stability. At high enough temperatures they are unstable. At even higher temperatures the weak, strong and electromagnetic force is indistinguishable from one another. Yet gravity still exists without change.

 

If you studied this for 18 years you should have learned more math than you have shown.

 

This includes Maxwell's equations.

 

Too bad you wasted all that time

( by the way you have no idea how many ppl state they studied something over 10 to 30 years yet never studied the math). Always results the same, NOTHING. You cannot make a model without the math no excuse the math can and does describe everything you posted. Including layer to layer density. (Stress energy tensor)

If you want to learn how particle physics work buy

 

"Introduction to particle physics by Griffith. All his books are good I own every one.

 

Another good book is Quarks and Leptons

 

Too bad you just hand wave every thing stated away. This probably means this thread will be locked.

 

(Mods decision on that)

 

At least I provided you some study material to learn from. Your choice

By the way your formula doesn't account for mass. Just radius, density is mass per unit volume

 

Wow looky looky were back to stress energy tensor.. I imagine that.

 

Here is another relation.

 

[latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex]

[latex]SO(3.1)=SO(2)\otimes SO(2)\backslash Z_2[/latex]

 

what the above correlates to is the 4*4 matrix (coordinates) correlates to the 4*4 observer coordinates via the Z integer group ( particle angular momentum (spin). electron is 1/2 spin, photon spin 1, gravity falls under spin 2 not part of the Z group. (May be another integer spin, i.e. -2 cannot be 1\2 or 1 or zero) loses symnetry

(Side note The letter group designations can have several meanings in lie algebra, there is a subset just on electromagnetic)

 

This above is the poincare group which the Lorentz group is a subset of equates to

 

[latex]g_{\mu v}=\Lambda_{\rho\mu}\Lambda{\sigma v}_g{\rho \sigma}[/latex]

 

This equates to

[latex]G_{\mu v}=\Lambda g_{\mu v}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu v}[/latex]

 

With the above you describe shear stress energy density and Lorentz boosts according to conservation of energy momentum.

The above is the math your competing against with no math..... get the picture????

 

 

The only way to get your model listened to in seriousness is with math at the level above

Let's look at Einteins field equations.

 

Let's start with the metric tensor.

 

[latex]G_{\mu v}[/latex]

 

"In general relativity, the metric tensor (or simply, the metric) is the fundamental object of study. It may loosely be thought of as a generalization of the gravitational potential familiar from Newtonian gravitation. The metric captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as distance, volume, curvature, angle, future and past"

 

Then the stress energy tensor...

 

[latex]T_{\mu v}[/latex]

 

"The stress energy tensor (sometimes stress energy momentum tensor or energy momentum tensor) is a tensor quantity in physics that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime, generalizing the stress tensor of Newtonian physics. It is an attribute of matter, radiation, and non-gravitational force fields. The stress energy tensor is the source of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity, just as mass density is the source of such a field in Newtonian gravity."

 

Now the Ricci tensor

 

[latex]R_{\mu v}[/latex]

 

 

In relativity theory, the Ricci tensor is the part of the curvature of space-time that determines the degree to which matter will tend to converge or diverge in time (via the Raychaudhuri equation). It is related to the matter content of the universe by means of the Einstein field equation. In differential geometry, lower bounds on the Ricci tensor on a Riemannian manifold allow one to extract global geometric and topological information by comparison (cf. comparison theorem) with the geometry of a constant curvature space form. If the Ricci tensor satisfies the vacuum Einstein equation, then the manifold is an Einstein manifold, which have been extensively studied (cf. Besse 1987). In this connection, the Ricci flow equation governs the evolution of a given metric to an Einstein metric; the precise manner in which this occurs ultimately leads to the solution of the Poincaré conjecture.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_curvature

 

 

Do you honestly believe your lack of math model competes with the above, WITHOUT showing that math???????

 

Please fools we are not

Edited April 15, 2015 by Mordred

[ajb]

If Dynamic Gravity is true, then the math would involve a lot more parameters then GR does, and require numbers that we don't have even estimates for, and won't for generations.

Okay, so keep them as parameters. You can then probabily put bounds on these using astrophysical and cosmological data.

 

I am not dodging the question of math, I have already answered it, its well beyond the abilities of any team of mathmaticians ludricrous salaries could possibly assemble, much less one person such as myself who has never made it past differential equaitons.

Then you don't have a theory?

 

 

 

So why did I post my theory here?

What theory?

 

And as for Predictions of how the universe would be in DG, I have already gone into that, these are testable observations that if anyone of them failed to exist then I would abandon it, but they do exist.

How have you predicted anything without a theory?

 

Predictions such as an expanding universe, galaxies that have other rims spinning nearly as fast as inner rims, black holes not producing any light, normal celestial objects never colliding, small objects never having orbiting debris trapped in orbit around it, planets being cospaciously sorted from smallest to largest from their parent star, stars of the similar size being similar distances apart, and larger stars being further away from neighbors, galaxies having interactions that form a structure to the universe, a proton not falling in a gravitational field, the speed of light as the speed limit for mass, and I am sure somethings I have forgotten about to mention.

Most of this seems explained in the standard theory (or I am missing some subtle points here). Anyway, how did you predict things we can measure and compare against your theory, if you don't have a theory?

 

If you think DG is a waste of time, then show a reason why.

We cannot say as you don't have a theory for us to consider.

 

Show why it can't be correct!

We don't know, as you don't have a theory.

 

 

If the only thing everyone hears in all my walls of text is "no math", then so be it.

You don't understand what a theory is. We have been telling you that you need a mathematical model here.

 

But at least my theory explains everything a theory should.

You have not got a theory. (I have I said that before?)

 

 

I challenge you to do better, if you have drive to spend years of your life obsessing over one singular idea until it drives you crazy.

The changeling is irrelevant. How hard and how long you have been working is irrelevant.

[Strange]

The first being that I don't understand GR and other basic principles of physics, if you believe I don't understand what I am talking about regarding anything related to Gravity then so be it.

 

You have made a number of fundamentally incorrect statements statements about GR. This is evidence that you don't understand it.

 

But I am no fool, and I assure you, I have spent more of my time wrestling with all concepts regarding Gravity over the last 18 years then anyone here will during their entire life. I guess your just gonna have to take my word of that, or don't.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Just know there are many truths in this world, many of which are backed by quite seemingly sound math, but there is only one absolute truth.

 

Irrelevant and not science.

 

I posted here for the reason I said I did in the first post. To see if anyone here might have experimental evidience that could either prove or disprove my theory.

 

Without quantitative, testable predictions, this can't be done.

 

All I know is that my theory makes a lot of predictions about how the universe would be, and they are almost exactly what we observe

 

How can you say "almost exactly" if you have no maths. Your theory might produce a result much bigger, much smaller or even of the opposite sign to what we observe. We don't know. You don't know.

 

GR can not make that claim, no matter how much math you drag out of it.

 

Repeating this lie does not help your case.

 

Concepts such as frame dragging in GR, translate over to DG by simply having the Eelectromagnetic Force field spinning as compared to GR's space/time.

 

Without the math, that is just a guess. And the same is true of all your "predictions".

 

If you think DG is a waste of time, then show a reason why. Attack DG!

 

You have, like all people of your ilk, completley ignored the criticisms of your idea. I assume you will continue to do so.

 

Look, here is the thing: science forums like these attract hundreds of people who have a "theory" that they have been working on for years or decades. None of them have any math. They all claim to predict what we see around us (in a purely qualitative way).

 

All of these personal theories cannot be right. We need some way of finding out which are possibly correct and which aren't. The only way of doing this is to have qantitative predictions that can be tested.

 

And don't give credence to GR when it doesn't deserve it, you say GR predicts an expanding universe, then show me one quote from Einstein saying so, because he would disagree with you on that, and its his theory.

 

This was worked out by LeMatitre.

 

You say GR explains Dark Matter

 

Did anyone say that?

 

so far all theories to even attempt to explain it have filed, because they can't explain why the universe is expanding but our solar system is not, how can space itself be expanding when our universe which is in space and we can measure quite accurately has never expanded not one inch since we have had laser measurments.

 

And another example of your ignorance of GR.

 

And for all its flaws don't get me started on the fact that GR never even comes close to explaining why mass curves space/time at all.

 

Because that is what mass is.

 

I understand GR

 

Very obviously not. All of the examples you give of GR "not working" are pure ignorance.

 

Give me an explanation for why the universe is as it is

 

That is not the job of science.

 

And FYI, the calculations I did and posted up previously was designed to determined variation between the largest celestial objects and their parent body they orbited in our solar system.

How do we use these numbers to test your theory?

Just so you know I did go back and re-read your previous posts to see if there was anything credible in there. I spotted this howler:

How curious that the most unstable particle in all of known physics is a single proton.

 

The proton is stable and, despite attempts, no proton decay has ever been observed.

 

In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron. There is currently no experimental evidence that proton decay occurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Thread closed. By your own admission you have no maths, thus no theory or quantitative predictions.

You may not reintroduce this topic. If after some time you have formulated a mathematical model you may petition a moderator to reopen this thread please do so by private message or by reporting this post.